Anti-natalism is the real black pill, once you swallow it so much of your world will change...

graytaich0 takes Inmendham's philosophy and turns it into digestible chunks, in reality he records fucking hours and hours every day, so sometimes it's hard to find the important stuff

he'll wax on physics and stuff he doesn't understand, so that's kind of sad, but his antinatalism is top notch and he's just as forceful as we should be

it's really the atheists dilemma; you admit live is a series of chain reactions with no purpose unto itself, you know there is no reward of fairness and that everything living will suffer and die, you continue this because ______?

they never have a good answer beyond their own desire

I don't believe in gods or any inherent purpose of life, nor do I want kids, but (correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read much about this philosophy) it seems like the main principle that anti-natalism operates on is the idea that life is that the only way to prevent suffering is through avoiding reproduction
But while there are plenty of people who may experience plenty of suffering throughout life, some may ultimately enjoy and be thankful for life
This board is not a good example of those types of people, but if you do create someone who enjoys their life, do anti-natalists believe you/they have been better off not having them? Aborting them or killing them as a child?
And if you're already here, I suppose you may as well do things for your own desire to enjoy as much as you can in life, but I iimagine their counter-argument would be that it shouldn't be at the expense of others, and reproduction raises a risk that bringing another person into existence could result in suffering for them?

Attached: DgkFXJL.jpg (800x600, 108K)

once you swallow it you become irrelevant. get back to work, drone.

>youtube.com/watch?v=b1mJnEmjlLE
>"There's no "broken" that humans fix"
I can't tell if this guy is accidentally profound or not but his words hit to the core of what I've been trying to get at. I'm glad you shared that channel, definitely a useful tool.

the entire point is "sure some people enjoy life, they all die, they may not enjoy, they may misrepresent it, they may not be forthcoming about the tedium and uselessness, and do you feel like you're qualified to roll those dice?"

you have to remember, every new life, it's likely to be born and live in poverty, if it's in the west, all but a small, small sliver will work until death and of course they all will die

are you qualified to say you should be allowed to make that choice for someone; to sentence a person to death?

he's just seen enough, when you've seen it, you really can't go back, this is why veteran's off themselves

where they were was the real world, and this one is pretend until shit gets "real"

why do you think we have that saying?

not a veteran btw

how often do you watch positive, uplifting videos about the beauty of life?

So above all, it's a risk assessment and a moral argument that claims someone who brings another person into the world is responsible for their suffering.
Even though someone who's very well off could still have a kid who's born with physical/mental handicaps that would bring suffering.. hypothetically speaking, if it were possible to tell if their offspring would be fine and enjoy life, would you be alright with them reproducing?
>are you qualified to say you should be allowed to make that choice for someone; to sentence a person to death?
Kind of indifferent to it, to be honest. Don't really care. Didn't ask to be here, but here I am.

Attached: IMG_3902.jpg (2048x1366, 867K)

different user, but this isn't just depressive reinforcement

I could ask you how many adult diapers you've changed, or how many people you've loved have you watched die? How many pediatric oncology wards have you been in? Have you ever had a piece of your bone protrude from your flesh?

>black-pill
>selfish desires
Nah, you're just an idiot that still believes in retarded gay shit like morality. unchain yourself my man.

are you going to answer the question bro? because it sounds like other peoples suffering is just entertainment for you, and your own is an excuse.

making compromises or the existence of misfortune is not an argument, because the opposite exists too. you're not arguing philosophy, you're arguing taste. some people like pop music, others like heavy metal.

I'm not that poster but
>But while there are plenty of people who may experience plenty of suffering throughout life, some may ultimately enjoy and be thankful for life
There are three reasons(and probably many more) for why this isn't a good argument for procreation: One is that any conscious life you create /will/(100% guaranteed) experience, if temporarily, if trivially, bouts of suffering, and that bouts of pleasure don't justify having brought these into existence, in the same way that possibly bringing about a bout of pleasure isn't worth murdering someone innocent. Second is that you cannot know how your child will turn up to be. How disabled, how sick, how terrible their existence will be when they're yet to exist is totally unknown to you. To procreate in this very real and all-present context is to play a game of dice with life.
Third is that you can't know what your children will do before they've had them, they can bring about an entire chain of suffering either through procreation as well or through other actions. You could potentially be responsible, through procreation, for the unnecessary suffering of millions of people and are guaranteed to be responsible for the suffering of at least one when you procreate.
> but if you do create someone who enjoys their life, do anti-natalists believe you/they have been better off not having them?
It's not accurate to portray anti-natalism as dealing with people who presently in the way that you are here. Anti-natalism isn't necessarily saying Joe should die or that the world would be better off without him. Anti-natalism is saying that Joe and other humans should not reproduce, full stop.
>Aborting them or killing them as a child?
Anti-natalism = Cease conception, this is before pregnancy and it is before birth.

>if it were possible to tell if their offspring would be fine and enjoy life, would you be alright with them reproducing?
no, but that's because we have no obligation to create satisfied preferrers. It would still always be a net loss, as creating an ass to wipe is not a necessity.

(but beside that, you can't guarantee a suffering free life, and suffering weighs more than pleasure, if I offered 2 days of pleasure for one say of suffering, you probably would turn me down)

If you want to read more, check out this concept

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifrustrationism

>because it sounds like other peoples suffering is just entertainment for you
jesus christ, you really need to stop now

Attached: 1493159416684.jpg (674x918, 98K)

*one day of suffering...

Often but I know that the beauty of life is not a valid argument for conception. Beings yet to exist don't exist to want to be brought into existence or to benefit from such a thing. Procreation doesn't benefit the one person that it should, the child, as it does not presently exist.

pleasure objectively weighs more. people also evolved to learn through pain. the only person who thinks 2 days of pleasure to 1 day of pain is a bad deal would be a spoiled kid.
i like anime too.

after it dies it also won't exist. but while it does exist, it will experience the joys of life. you're the one making the argument against the nature of things, so you have to come up with a valid argument lol. "corners exist so we shouldn't have walls!" is not convincing.

>pleasure objectively weighs more
I can't argue against intellectual dishonesty. You're saying that if you experienced orgasmic bless for two days straight at the price of one day of incomprehensible physical suffering, that would be okay?

*bliss

fuck, I keep fucking up!

>I can't argue
I can see that.
>incomprehensible physical suffering
what's this verbose shit you fag, do you mean torture? no i wouldn't want to be tortured. people work 5 days a week to go out on the weekends and usually love life though. People train and study for decades to hopefully achieve their dreams of success. People go through dozens or hundreds of rejections or bad relationships to find someone they love. That's life, boyo, if you draw the line at "i eat and sleep" that's just a preference.

different user,

not only is that a false analogy, but you're coming at this with all sorts of bias. If user doesn't bring life into the world, he has risked exactly nothing, not created a new preference to be satisfied

if someone does, they're betting against odds for early disease, a lifetime of labor, and god knows what, and they always eventually lose. How many blowjobs are worth someone being born with harlequin ichthyosis? You are taking responsibilty for that where the reward will always be loss, you will always lose and so will the offspring

and that's not getting into population consideration and that most people don't live a decadent life like us

it's a thought experiment, and you're very much in over your head. Out of respect for you, I'm out

>risked exactly nothing
except regret
>betting against odds
you do that every minute of every day
>population
if the resources are there you'll be replaced, i don't think that's a meaningful argument

>thought experiment
no, that's what sucks ass about these threads. you CAN have a valid philosophical argument about the flawed persistence of life or economic/ethical arguments about controlling who should be allowed to have children. all you're doing is focusing on bad emotions which are fundamental to the existence of good ones, and taking a logical leap that everyone should focus on those negative emotions enough to become attention whores and die off childless. but none of that is appealing or rational.

I've already listed in for why the consequential view, that you're taking, serves against procreation.

but I'm now talking about the immediate, the here and now. The present where procreation confers no benefit to a person who does not exist. If you want to talk about consequence then see above.

OP doesn't even try to reply and argue against me because he KNOWS he's already lost.

I'm not every anti-natalist in this thread so some posts argue in a way I wouldn't, meaning the counter-argument to those posts aren't necessarily counter-arguments to what I might say. Kinda hard to pick up from there in that case. I'm also unusually tired at the moment but I'm still here in case of discussion for posts I did make.

but it does have benefit as soon as they exist.

Fuck off schlomo, take your propaganda to Africa and India where it is needed

Attached: get out.jpg (260x260, 14K)

Have you ever considered that not everyone is a depressed cunt who wishes to be dead?

Now you're talking consequence so see

Abstaining from reproduction is important for those nations(and every other nation) but procreation is a problem everywhere and one person abstaining can mean preventing what could be countless generations of unnecessary suffering.

Continued existence isn't the same as lives yet to be.

consequence applies to any decision. your dumb dice game metaphor is the whole point. we live to experience life.

>mfw I posted this picture and spurred the movement

except you don't prevent suffering any more than you prevent joy in that case. you've just decided that you're not good enough to be a parent.

The butterfly effect.
>subject a has a net positive experience or is subjected to a net positive amount of pleasure vs pain/suffering
>as a result, subject b has received an unrelenting amount of suffering in return due to a series of coincidences perpetuated to the fault of no one but probability itself

If you truly believe and are fixed on the notion that the essence of life is virtually nothing but suffering and failure to the point that you feel the need to spread and advocate on the idea that a individual's decision to having kids is morally wrong, unironically kys and you will not be missed if that's how you view your own worth in this world. The selling point to this "woe is me" blackpill anti-natalism/efilism bullshit, is by strategically brutal-forcing the idea that nothing will ever get decent and the feeling of detachment you have to the world is basically you "waking up."

Misery loves company...

I'm the poster you guys replied to
So, risk aside, at what pleasure-suffering ratio does life become valuable or worth living to you? Or is it inherently invaluable or immoral to create one with an infinitely small (or nonexistent) amount of suffering?
And to what point is anything other than bliss suffering?
It's obviously impossible to tell, and I think the concept of a "utopia" is impossible, but I'm trying to get a more detailed idea of the philosophy from more of a hypothetical/theoretical perspective, purely out of curiosity.

Attached: IMG_4439.jpg (1536x1208, 541K)

Why should I be the one to decide that possible joy outweighs possible suffering for a person that I don't have to create?

>you've just decided that you're not good enough to be a parent.
I'm actually trying to better myself so I can be someone worth becoming an adoptive parent.

Anti-natalism is code for anti-white.

>It's obviously impossible to tell
By that, I mean it's impossible to tell how much suffering your offspring will experience

Procreation is immoral because suffering matters and suffering matters because it matters to people who experience it. It's not necessarily a nihiistic philosophy.

>suffering matters
it really doesn't.
Also, you're gay.

No one in a mental state within the normal range breaks their legs, looks down, sees everything in places it should not be and goes "eh, this doesn't matter." It certainly matters to them. Cosmic nihilism takes a very far backseat.

>Procreation is immoral because suffering matters and suffering matters because it matters to people who experience it.

That sounds like an excuse, you rather waddle in yourself in the idea of absolute suffering and self pity. Yes, suffering is a part of the human condition but those who refuse to jump over that hurdle and better themselves have no dignified place on this world, especially on the position on if it's moral to procreate who are you judge someones morality because you focus so much of time on suffering it holds no value. There's a reason people don't like hanging out with folks who constantly throw themselves pity-parties.

>It certainly matters to them.
to them, but I'm not them, am I?
Why the fuck should I care?

>Why should I care about my child
That's a topic for a different ethical debate lol

>That sounds like an excuse
It's not.

The rest of your points seem to boil down to using suffering to better yourself as an existent person. I'm not against that but it's not the only scenario in which suffering exists. The other scenarios make potential suffering worth avoiding in the context of procreation.

THis dude just got BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
NOBODY CAN DEBATE LIKE I CAN

Attached: badass.png (500x400, 127K)

this. fucking atheists and their degeneracy again

Are you a christkek?

I understand the concept of chaos/unpredictability in life, but people still have some amount of control over what happens in their lives and how they react to it
Obviously there's no pure certainty in how your offspring's life will turn out